Naval Aluminum Was Not the Achilles' Heel of the U.S.S. Stark

Published: June 14, 1987

To the Editor:

News accounts of the 1982 Falklands naval engagements created erroneous impressions about the use of aluminum in ships. Those accounts required correction at that time. Today, misstatements about the performance of naval aluminum in the U.S.S. Stark also need to be corrected (e.g., your May 22 editorial).

Suggestions that marine aluminum can ''burn'' simply are not true in the commonly accepted sense of contributing to combustion the way that wood or rubber does. Under heat of an intense fire, aluminum weakens -as do other metals - and will ultimately melt, although that process can be delayed by the type of insulating material the Navy is applying to superstructures to gain the time necessary for damage control.

To increase their combat effectiveness, the Navy has made use of aluminum in the superstructures of many of its warships. Because aluminum is lighter than steel, using it above the waterline adds to a ship's stability, maneuverability and speed. Otherwise, it would be difficult to accommodate the weight of sophisticated radar and electronic gear, which must of necessity be mounted high on the ship. In terms of its capacity to shield against shells and fragments, aluminum can be as effective as steel, especially when used with certain fiber laminations.

Decisions by the military services concerning which materials to use for which purpose are made very deliberately, and aluminum has been found to be a wholly appropriate material for naval vessels.

At the time of the Falklands naval engagements, we had no evidence that the material used - whether it was steel or aluminum - was a factor in the loss of ships. In fact, the British destroyer Sheffield, whose loss drew the greatest attention, was essentially an all-steel vessel.

Thus, in December 1982, following extensive inquiries, the British Secretary of State for Defense presented a report to Parliament in which he stated ''. . . there is no evidence that [ aluminum ] has contributed to the loss of any vessel'' in the Falklands campaign. Similarly, on Feb. 3, 1983, then U.S. Navy Secretary John F. Lehman Jr. reported to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Strategic and Critical Materials that ''there is no evidence that use of aluminum contributed to the loss of any of the British combat ships.''

We are confident that when current official inquiries into the missile firings on the U.S.S. Stark are completed, naval aluminum will again be found to have played its usual positive roles, contributing to naval vessels' stability, maneuverability and speed. JOHN C. BARD President, Aluminum Association Washington, June 3, 1987